eXampleCG Enabling Excellence Forum

What it takes to be great!!

Research now shows that the lack of natural talent is irrelevant to great success. The secret? Painful and demanding practice and hard work

(Fortune Magazine) -- What makes Tiger Woods great? What made Berkshire Hathaway (Charts) Chairman Warren Buffett the world's premier investor? We think we know: Each was a natural who came into the world with a gift for doing exactly what he ended up doing. As Buffett told Fortune not long ago, he was "wired at birth to allocate capital." It's a one-in-a-million thing. You've got it - or you don't.

Well, folks, it's not so simple. For one thing, you do not possess a natural gift for a certain job, because targeted natural gifts don't exist. (Sorry, Warren.) You are not a born CEO or investor or chess grandmaster. You will achieve greatness only through an enormous amount of hard work over many years. And not just any hard work, but work of a particular type that's demanding and painful.

Born Winner? Golf champ Tiger Woods (pictured at 3 years old) never stopped trying to improve.

Woods (pictured in 2001) devoted hours to practice and even remade his Swing twice, because that's what it took to get better.

Buffett, for instance, is famed for his discipline and the hours he spends studying financial statements of potential investment targets. The good news is that your lack of a natural gift is irrelevant - talent has little or nothing to do with greatness. You can make yourself into any number of things, and you can even make yourself great.

Scientific experts are producing remarkably consistent findings across a wide array of fields. Understand that talent doesn't mean intelligence, motivation or personality traits. It's an innate ability to do some specific activity especially well.

British-based researchers Michael J. Howe, Jane W. Davidson and John A. Sluboda conclude in an extensive study, "The evidence we have surveyed ... does not support the [notion that] excelling is a consequence of possessing innate gifts."

To see how the researchers could reach such a conclusion, consider the problem they were trying to solve. In virtually every field of endeavor, most people learn quickly at first, then more slowly and then stop developing completely. Yet a few do improve for years and even decades, and go on to greatness.

The irresistible question - the "fundamental challenge" for researchers in this field, says the most prominent of them, professor K. Anders Ericsson of Florida State University - is, Why? How are certain people able to go on improving? The answers begin with consistent observations about great performers in many fields.

Scientists worldwide have conducted scores of studies since the 1993 publication of a landmark paper by Ericsson and two colleagues, many focusing on sports, music and chess, in which performance is relatively easy to measure and plot over time. But plenty of additional studies have also examined other fields, including business.

No substitute for hard work

The first major conclusion is that nobody is great without work. It's nice to believe that if you find the field where you're naturally gifted, you'll be great from day one, but it doesn't happen. There's no evidence of high-level performance without experience or practice.

Reinforcing that no-free-lunch finding is vast evidence that even the most accomplished people need around ten years of hard work before becoming world-class, a pattern so well established researchers call it the ten-year rule.

What about Bobby Fischer, who became a chess grandmaster at 16? Turns out the rule holds: He'd had nine years of intensive study. And as John Horn of the University of Southern California and Hiromi Masunaga of California State University observe, "The ten-year rule represents a very rough estimate, and most researchers regard it as a minimum, not an average." In many fields (music, literature) elite performers need 20 or 30 years' experience before hitting their zenith.

So greatness isn't handed to anyone; it requires a lot of hard work. Yet that isn't enough, since many people work hard for decades without approaching greatness or even getting significantly better. What's missing?

Practice makes perfect
The best people in any field are those who devote the most hours to what the researchers call "deliberate practice." It's activity that's explicitly intended to improve performance, that reaches for objectives just beyond one's level of competence, provides feedback on results and involves high levels of repetition.

For example: Simply hitting a bucket of balls is not deliberate practice, which is why most golfers don't get better. Hitting an eight-iron 300 times with a goal of leaving the ball within 20 feet of the pin 80 percent of the time, continually observing results and making appropriate adjustments, and doing that for hours every day - that's deliberate practice.

Consistency is crucial. As Ericsson notes, "Elite performers in many diverse domains have been found to practice, on the average, roughly the same amount every day, including weekends."
Evidence crosses a remarkable range of fields. In a study of 20-year-old violinists by Ericsson and colleagues, the best group (judged by conservatory teachers) averaged 10,000 hours of deliberate practice over their lives; the next-best averaged 7,500 hours; and the next, 5,000. It's the same story in surgery, insurance sales, and virtually every sport. More deliberate practice equals better performance. Tons of it equals great performance.

The skeptics
Not all researchers are totally onboard with the myth-of-talent hypothesis, though their objections go to its edges rather than its center. For one thing, there are the intangibles. Two athletes might work equally hard, but what explains the ability of New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady to perform at a higher level in the last two minutes of a game?

Researchers also note, for example, child prodigies who could speak, read or play music at an unusually early age. But on investigation those cases generally include highly involved parents. And many prodigies do not go on to greatness in their early field, while great performers include many who showed no special early aptitude.

Certainly some important traits are partly inherited, such as physical size and particular measures of intelligence, but those influence what a person doesn't do more than what he does; a five-footer will never be an NFL lineman, and a seven-footer will never be an Olympic gymnast. Even those restrictions are less severe than you'd expect: Ericsson notes, "Some international chess masters have IQs in the 90s." The more research that's done, the more solid the deliberate-practice model becomes.

Real-world examples
All this scholarly research is simply evidence for what great performers have been showing us for years. To take a handful of examples: Winston Churchill, one of the 20th century's greatest orators, practiced his speeches compulsively. Vladimir Horowitz supposedly said, "If I don't practice for a day, I know it. If I don't practice for two days, my wife knows it. If I don't practice for three days, the world knows it." He was certainly a demon practicer, but the same quote has been attributed to world-class musicians like Ignace Paderewski and Luciano Pavarotti.

Many great athletes are legendary for the brutal discipline of their practice routines. In basketball, Michael Jordan practiced intensely beyond the already punishing team practices. (Had Jordan possessed some mammoth natural gift specifically for basketball, it seems unlikely he'd have been cut from his high school team.)

In football, all-time-great receiver Jerry Rice - passed up by 15 teams because they considered him too slow - practiced so hard that other players would get sick trying to keep up.
Tiger Woods is a textbook example of what the research shows. Because his father introduced him to golf at an extremely early age - 18 months - and encouraged him to practice intensively, Woods had racked up at least 15 years of practice by the time he became the youngest-ever winner of the U.S. Amateur Championship, at age 18. Also in line with the findings, he has never stopped trying to improve, devoting many hours a day to conditioning and practice, even remaking his swing twice because that's what it took to get even better.

The business side
The evidence, scientific as well as anecdotal, seems overwhelmingly in favor of deliberate practice as the source of great performance. Just one problem: How do you practice business? Many elements of business, in fact, are directly practicable. Presenting, negotiating, delivering evaluations, deciphering financial statements - you can practice them all.

Still, they aren't the essence of great managerial performance. That requires making judgments and decisions with imperfect information in an uncertain environment, interacting with people, seeking information - can you practice those things too? You can, though not in the way you would practice a Chopin etude.

Instead, it's all about how you do what you're already doing - you create the practice in your work, which requires a few critical changes. The first is going at any task with a new goal: Instead of merely trying to get it done, you aim to get better at it.

Report writing involves finding information, analyzing it and presenting it - each an improvable skill. Chairing a board meeting requires understanding the company's strategy in the deepest way, forming a coherent view of coming market changes and setting a tone for the discussion. Anything that anyone does at work, from the most basic task to the most exalted, is an improvable skill.
Adopting a new mindset

Armed with that mindset, people go at a job in a new way. Research shows they process information more deeply and retain it longer. They want more information on what they're doing and seek other perspectives. They adopt a longer-term point of view. In the activity itself, the mindset persists. You aren't just doing the job, you're explicitly trying to get better at it in the larger sense.

Again, research shows that this difference in mental approach is vital. For example, when amateur singers take a singing lesson, they experience it as fun, a release of tension. But for professional singers, it's the opposite: They increase their concentration and focus on improving their performance during the lesson. Same activity, different mindset.

Feedback is crucial, and getting it should be no problem in business. Yet most people don't seek it; they just wait for it, half hoping it won't come. Without it, as Goldman Sachs leadership-development chief Steve Kerr says, "it's as if you're bowling through a curtain that comes down to knee level. If you don't know how successful you are, two things happen: One, you don't get any better, and two, you stop caring." In some companies, like General Electric, frequent feedback is part of the culture. If you aren't lucky enough to get that, seek it out.

Be the ball
Through the whole process, one of your goals is to build what the researchers call "mental models of your business" - pictures of how the elements fit together and influence one another. The more you work on it, the larger your mental models will become and the better your performance will grow.
Andy Grove could keep a model of a whole world-changing technology industry in his head and adapt Intel (Charts) as needed. Bill Gates, Microsoft's (Charts) founder, had the same knack: He could see at the dawn of the PC that his goal of a computer on every desk was realistic and would create an unimaginably large market. John D. Rockefeller, too, saw ahead when the world-changing new industry was oil. Napoleon was perhaps the greatest ever. He could not only hold all the elements of a vast battle in his mind but, more important, could also respond quickly when they shifted in unexpected ways.

That's a lot to focus on for the benefits of deliberate practice - and worthless without one more requirement: Do it regularly, not sporadically.
Why?

For most people, work is hard enough without pushing even harder. Those extra steps are so difficult and painful they almost never get done. That's the way it must be. If great performance were easy, it wouldn't be rare. Which leads to possibly the deepest question about greatness. While experts understand an enormous amount about the behavior that produces great performance, they understand very little about where that behavior comes from.

The authors of one study conclude, "We still do not know which factors encourage individuals to engage in deliberate practice." Or as University of Michigan business school professor Noel Tichy puts it after 30 years of working with managers, "Some people are much more motivated than others, and that's the existential question I cannot answer - why."

The critical reality is that we are not hostage to some naturally granted level of talent. We can make ourselves what we will. Strangely, that idea is not popular. People hate abandoning the notion that they would coast to fame and riches if they found their talent. But that view is tragically constraining, because when they hit life's inevitable bumps in the road, they conclude that they just aren't gifted and give up.

Maybe we can't expect most people to achieve greatness. It's just too demanding. But the striking, liberating news is that greatness isn't reserved for a preordained few. It is available to you and to everyone.

Are you ready to pursue greatness in what you do??

Why Workers Are Reluctant to Share Their Knowledge

When it comes to job knowledge, usually few know more about it than the person performing the assignment.

"Employees accumulate a wealth of information about their jobs and, along the way, develop efficiencies that make them more productive. Yet, they are often reluctant, for various reasons, to pass along that knowledge to others within the organization," says Dr. David Zweig, an assistant professor of organization behavior at the University of Toronto.

"Knowledge sharing is often one of the most troubling issues facing employers and they keep trying to develop effective ways to encourage employees to share what they have learned on their jobs. It remains a difficult goal," says Zweig. Companies consider knowledge acquired on the job as belonging to the organization and it is critical that it be shared. But often employees do not see it that way.

Zweig and Dr. Susan Brodt of Queens University and several colleagues have been studying why people are reluctant to share their knowledge.

Knowledge sharing differs from industry to industry, says Brodt, who has been studying secrecy in high tech companies. Just the nature of the work in some organizations, such as the amount of sensitive or proprietary information, highlights the need for secrecy. To deal with the issue of what should and should not be disclosed (and to whom), most workplaces have developed norms, that is, informal rules quite separate from formal policies, for handling information.

Unfortunately, Brodt notes, these norms end up not being very helpful, leaving employees to cope with vague or incomplete or even conflicting guidance about what to share and with whom.

The pitfalls of secrecy norms are that they often lead to a work climate where everyone keeps knowledge to themselves, which, in turn, may hinder productivity. The researchers found that people with critical knowledge will often protect it as if it were their own property and they will engage in different behaviors to hide knowledge from others.

Zweig identified three reasons why employees engage in knowledge hiding. One is interpersonal and that includes circumstances when people feel that an injustice has been done to them, they are distrustful of management or feel they are reciprocating for someone else's behavior toward them.

Closely related are employees who are unsure of themselves and keep information to themselves. "They are afraid of negative job evaluations and figure they are better off not sharing anything," Zweig says.

A third reason is the organizational climate. "If there is a culture of not sharing and being secretive, then employees tend to adopt that culture," he added.

Also, hanging on to their job knowledge gives them a sense of power and importance because they have specific information that no one else has.

Zweig notes that not all employees refuse to share information. They are more than willing to provide job knowledge to people they trust and who treat them fairly.

Companies often turn to technology, encouraging employees to build databases of knowledge, but if workers are not willing to cooperate, these efforts are not very productive. Knowledge sharing requires more personal interaction than person-to-computer links, Zweig maintains.

If organizations want to promote knowledge sharing, and it is in their best interests to do so, they need to enhance the workplace climate and make knowledge sharing and collaboration a norm in the workplace. "It could be part of their performance appraisals. If employees know they will be rewarded for sharing their expertise, they will be more open to doing so," he says.

He also suggests that if organizations emphasize positive relationships and trust among employees, then knowledge sharing will become part of the culture. "And that makes everyone better," he says.

What is your experience?

Even particularly challenging Six Sigma DMAIC projects usually benefit a company in the end. But some Black Belts end up with a project that can only be described as a bad Six Sigma project. Learn about some types of bad DMAIC projects and what you can do should you find yourself working on one.

About Six Sigma Projects

Six Sigma DMAIC is a powerful methodology for confirming process performance problems, uncovering the root causes of those problems, and implementing sustainable solutions. It is best used as part of an overall Six Sigma strategy that includes clarifying core processes, establishing the critical few business priorities, and chartering DMAIC projects based on identified process problems tied to those priorities.

Many Six Sigma projects are properly selected and executed, leading to substantial improvements in financial performance, customer satisfaction, and/or employee satisfaction. On occasion, however, business leaders either misunderstand the proper use of DMAIC projects or try to accomplish their own agendas under the cover of a Six Sigma project.

Should you find yourself in a situation where you are tasked with managing or supporting a project that fits in one of these categories, be prepared to push back on leadership and help them understand why a DMAIC project is not the right approach.

Types of Bad DMAIC Projects

Many Six Sigma projects seem to present challenges, but in most cases the project team can effectively work through obstacles using the DMAIC tools and methodology to accomplish the project goals. But in some situations, DMAIC is just the wrong approach to a business problem, and when that is the case proceeding with a project can worsen the situation rather than fixing it, or at best delay a proper solution.

Signs that a project is a bad Six Sigma project include:

The project sponsor or Six Sigma director can not clearly state the problem that the project was chartered to solve
There is no way to obtain sufficient data to evaluate process performance and/or customer satisfaction
The solution to a problem is already clear, but leaders are hesitant to implement it for political or similar reasons and thus charter a DMAIC project to essentially put the burden on someone else
The selected project is not aligned with a critical-few business priority
The process or organization is undergoing such dramatic changes that a DMAIC project would not be effective
In some cases one of the problems listed above will only become apparent once a project is already underway. Sometimes the project scope or objective can be tweaked to make it a good fit for a DMAIC project, but in other cases a DMAIC project is simply not appropriate and is not going to be effective. It is then the project leader's responsibility to inform the project sponsor or Six Sigma director that the project can not or should not be continued, rather than going through the motions.

In some environments this can be a difficult thing to do, as employees are rewarded for successfully seeing through a Six Sigma project and the Green Belt or Black Belt involved may be relying on successful project completion to count toward certification. Thus a successful Six Sigma initiative should from the outset incorporate a procedure for dealing with projects that are rightly discontinued and whose cessation impacts individual employees.

Dealing with Bad Six Sigma Projects

Let's look in detail at some of the bad Six Sigma projects you may encounter.

No clarity on problem statement:

Trying to lead a DMAIC project without a clear problem statement is like trying to hit a bullseye when no one has even led you to the archery range and shown you where the targets are. If you have been assigned a project and are unable to get your Six Sigma leader or the project sponsor to clearly state the problem they want to solve, you should immediately raise a red flag.

There are several reasons that leaders might charter a DMAIC project in the absence of a clear problem statement. In some cases, they know what the problem is but simply haven't taken the time to clearly define it and are expecting you to do so as you develop the project charter in the Define phase. This is fine, as long as you are convinced that they know what the problem is and can give you enough information for you to follow through with the charter and the project. In other cases though, the inability of business leaders to provide a Black Belt with a clear problem statement is a sign that DMAIC may not be the appropriate course of action.

It may be a case of a leader wanting to make a specific business change and using a DMAIC project to "prove" that it is the right thing to do. (See "Solution in search of a problem" below.)

Or it may simply be a sign that leaders are not really clear what is wrong with a process or even which process is in need of performance improvement. In this case you as the project manager or other stakeholder should let the leaders know that you need more information from them in order to understand the project you're being asked to lead or even to confirm that DMAIC is the proper approach. In many cases a simple discussion will give you the details you need to move forward, but in others you will come to the realization that proceeding in the absence of a clear process problem to addres would surely lead to a bad DMAIC project.

Insufficient data:

Six Sigma and the DMAIC methodology are highly data driven, and each phase of DMAIC requires data to substantiate assumptions about how the process is performing, what is causing poor performance, and how to counteract the root causes. In most cases a project is not chartered unless it is clear that sufficient data exists to assess process performance. Even then, one the project progresses and the problem is further understood, a project team may find that it is simply not possible to obtain enough data on the relevant process factors to conduct an effective DMAIC project. This may be because that part of the process doesn't cycle frequently enough, because data has not been gathered for a long enough time, or because data has not been gathered at all.

Regardless of when the discovery is made, a realization that insufficient data exists requires a formal discussion of whether the project can be adequately completed using the DMAIC methodology. In some cases the project scope or objective can be altered or a workaround can be developed to measure process performance in an indirect way. In other cases the project team may have to face the unfortunate decision that the DMAIC process can not proceed.

Solution in search of a problem:

Particularly in organizations that are new to Six Sigma or have not fully embraced the philosophy, Six Sigma projects are sometimes chartered not to clarify a performance problem and uncover root causes, but instead to put a solution in place that leaders have already selected.

Some cases fall into the "Duh!" or "Just Do It" category, meaning that if the solution is obvious then DMAIC is completely unnecessary. Leaders should just implement the solution and use process management techniques to ensure it is sustainable. In other cases, however, such a project may be more of a political move, with a business leader attempting to push his favored process change under the guise of a systematic DMAIC project. In these cases it may quickly become apparent to the project leader that the solution is a "just do it". But more often the project team gets the project underway only to find that either a problem doesn't really exist or that the sponsor or business leader is only interested in supporting his own solution, not a thorough DMAIC project.

In this situation it is critical that the Black Belt and other savvy project participants address this problem either directly with the sponsor or leader or, if necessary, indirectly with that individual's superior or with a high-level Six Sigma leader. It does the company no good to devote extensive resources to a DMAIC project when either a simple project management approach is called for or a leader is putting his assumptions and wishes above empirical evidence.

Not one of the critical few:

One of the simplest ways in which a company can have a bad Six Sigma project is to focus on processes that are not aligned with the agreed-upon critical few performance objectives. By using a thorough business process management system that incorporates a project selection and prioritization procedure, leaders can ensure that chartered Six Sigma projects are an effective use of resources. In addition to the importance of focusing on high-priority projects, leaders should also be aware that buy-in will be much greater for DMAIC projects when they are focused on a problem that is widely seen as having major impact on customers, employees, and/or the bottom line.

Widespread changes:

One of the most frustrating things for a Six Sigma project leader is trying to conduct an effective DMAIC project when the organizational landscape is continually changing. A certain amount of change is expected in any dynamic organization, but changes substantial enough to dramatically alter the process being improved and/or the roles of key stakeholders can leave a project team struggling to continually adapt to the new reality.

In most cases when major organization changes are planned, Six Sigma resources would be better spent focusing on other process areas until the process in question is stabilized, and then Six Sigma and DMAIC principles can be used to maximize process performance and customer satisfaction. Depending on the circumstances, it may be possible to conduct a series of DMAIC projects in phases timed with the process changes or organizational shifts. However, this can take extensive planning and since timetables for both DMAIC projects and organizational changes are subject to major shifts, it can be risky.

Other Factors

Sometimes a Six Sigma project becomes a bad project not because it was inherently a bad fit for DMAIC, but because circumstances through the life of the project ultimately make it impossible to conduct and complete it effectively.

Watch out for these warning signs of Six Sigma projects that are going bad or have the potential to do so:

The project sponsor or process owner regularly skips project meetings or fails to meet his project-related commitments
The process owner convinces higher-ups that she fully supports Six Sigma and wants your help improving processes in her area, but continually resists your efforts to understand and improve process performance. She may even keep tinkering with the process on her own throughout the project despite your reminders that the DMAIC protocol requires a systematic approach.
Your Six Sigma leader, process owner or process sponsor keeps changing the project scope or phase deliverables after the fact and reneging on previous approval of what has been completed.
An unexpected change in business leadership, structure, or processes renders your project moot or would require massive changes to project scope and objectives for it to remain tenable
Many of these examples represent political issues that can be especially difficult to overcome, particularly when it means challenging your boss or other business leaders. In such a situation, remember the tenets of the Six Sigma philosophy and use data and critical thinking to help make your case for halting or re-purposing a project. Your comments will be best received if you frame them in terms of what is best for the business and customers, and in relation to the outcomes that leaders intend to achieve.

Article by Heidi Wiesenfelder

The August 4, 2008 Nikkei Business Online article titled Top Engineer Explains How Toyota Develops People. The article is an interview with Nanpachi Hayashi, Toyota's top engineer. He was a student of Taiichi Ohno, and much what he talks about sounds like it came out of the pages of Taiichi Ohno's Workplace Management.

(The article's Japanese version is available at http://business.nikkeibp.co.jp/article/topics/20080801/166974/ )

The importance of making people think and struggle on their own, following up, and going to see are a few of the familiar themes. The following is my selected translation, summary and commentary.

Hayashi began working with Taiichi Ohno in 1970 in developing the Toyota Production System. What was it like to work with Mr. Ohno as a boss?

Hayashi: I was really afraid of Mr. Ohno when I was young. But I think he was developing thinking people. He never gave us the answer. When he gave us an assignment, he would just stand by and watch us fail, even if he knew the answer.

Taiichi Ohno would give his subordinates nearly impossible challenges. But from the moment he gave these challenges, Ohno himself would be thinking about the solution, so he followed up. Hayashi says that Ohno always came to see for himself the next day. When the solution was inadequate Ohno would yell "What is this?!" but this helped people recognize where their perspective had been inadequate. According to Hayashi, "Mr. Ohno scolded us after first making us really think and struggle, and this helped us to come to a deeper understanding."

Hayashi says, "Developing people requires physical endurance." Frequent follow up is necessary, in person. It is not acceptable to give an assignment and follow up or scold only after three months, during a progress report meeting. Specific actions and detailed follow up are necessary. Do Toyota and the people within the organization still have this "physical endurance?" Hayashi raises several concerns he has with the current state of people development at Toyota. First, the emphasis on documentation and standardization, although inevitable to raise level across production facilities worldwide. Hayashi makes it clear that he views the current level of global expansion to be excessive, implying that it is not sustainable from the level of detailed-follow up needed to develop thinking people.

Hayashi reflects on how his teacher would follow up on one thing at a time, rather than multiple topics:

When Mr. Ohno came to the gemba (workplace) he would only give one assignment, and he would always be back to check the next morning. It was scary, but it gave me peace of mind to know that he would be back to check.

This paragraph struck me as particularly impressive, and deserves to be translated in full:

Also, when we are required to deliver results with speed, we only give our subordinates small projects so that even if they fail they have time to recover. In the end, we give them the solution. We must firmly carry on the practice of developing thinking people. Mr. Ohno often said to us, "Don't look with your eyes, look with your feet. Don't think with you head, think with your hands." He also taught us, "People who can't understand numbers are useless. The gemba where numbers are not visible is also bad. However, people who only look at the numbers are the worst of all."

Those are two brilliant new quotes from Taiichi Ohno. Thank you again to Mr. Ohno and Mr. Hayashi for continuing the tradition of teaching us.

On the theme of the importance of follow up, Hayashi answers the question "What is the behavior required from management to develop thinking people?"

Perhaps not every time, but managers need to follow up by "random audit" at least one time in ten.

He tells the story of a time when Hayashi went to report progress to Mr. Ohno, and Ohno followed up by asking Hayashi, "Did you go see for yourself?" Hayashi responded, "Yes" even though he had not and had only presented a report received from the gemba. Mr. Ohno said, "Let's go to the gemba. Show me the real thing and explain it to me again." From then on Hayashi always checked for himself and only reported to Mr. Ohno what he had personally seen and understood.

Asked how Toyota was coping with rapid international expansion and the need to develop thinking people, Hayashi provided insight:

Toyota does not have a goal. An increasing number of Toyota people from outside of Japan understand this, but this is something hard to get used to. They think that when a target is reached, they deserve a reward.

Hayashi likens it to Goldratt's "Goal" in that it can never be reached.

Another recent development at Toyota that concerns Hayashi is the increase in the number of temporary or contract labor.

They (temporary or contract labor) are increasing because it is not possible to rapidly hire the people needed, but reducing cost by hiring people so we can pay them less money to do the same work is not kaizen.

Hayashi recognizes that there are both people who prefer to work as contractors in several jobs, and those people who are term employees who participate actively in QC circles. The important thing, he says, is to develop shop floor leaders who can bring together such a diverse group.

Compared to the past, has the gemba at Toyota become stronger or weaker? Hayashi says both are true. Toyota people have become better with computer skills, the development of technical skills and formal training. However the mental toughness and determination to do whatever it takes, when there is no people and no money and you just have to work through the night, is missing.

Hayashi is encouraged that very few people at Toyota think they are as good as they can be, and most recognize that a lot remains to be done. With a kaizen mind, ever looking at problems as opportunities, Hayashi says:

These last few years have been good ones for Toyota and the use of creativity rather than money to solve problems may have been weakened. Now that the economy is slowing down and investments are harder to make, I think this is a good opportunity.

Taiichi Ohno said, "Your wits don't work until you feel the squeeze." Mr. Hayashi sees the latest economic slowdown as just the squeeze Toyota needs to develop thinking people.

By Jon Miller - August 4, 2008 10:13 AM

One of the more counterproductive things a manager can say is ‘Don't bring me problems-bring me solutions!'"(Presented as Q&A)

Q: I thought that encouraging employees to solve problems was a good thing-?

A: It is, of course. But sending out this message doesn't do it. Instead of promoting accountability, it actually encourages employees to turn a blind eye to problems they see but cannot figure out how to fix. When you say "Don't bring me problems-bring me solutions," what you're saying, in effect, is "Of all the problems you find, I only want to know about the ones you can solve."

Identifying problems can be a solo sport, but finding solutions rarely is. This is especially true when the problems have any degree of complexity. If you're giving people permission to tell you about just those problems they can solve, you're missing out on many opportunities for improvement. You're leaving performance boosters on the table simply because the problem and the solution aren't collocated.

Q: When you put it like that, it seems pretty obvious. So what would you say accounts for the enduring popularity of this management chestnut?

A: At first blush, it sounds empowering:" Hey, go out there and solve some problems. You're smart, you're able-I trust you to do it!" But as well intentioned as it is, it's misguided. I always cringe a little bit when I hear managers say it-and I hear it a lot.

One reason for its popularity, I suspect, is that managers use it to quiet chronic complainers. But any good they're realizing by silencing squeaky wheels is more than offset by the damage they're causing by stifling collective solutions.

Managers need to find another way to deal with the whiners-one that doesn't prevent observant, well-intentioned people from pointing out problems that limit performance.

Q: I know that your work takes you inside a lot of companies. Are some cultures particularly resistant to the surfacing of problems?

A: Sure. One example is cultures that place a strong emphasis on doing things right the first time. Companies that pride themselves on attaining straight-from-the-gate operational excellence often make it feel dangerous to point out problems-especially when the person doesn't see an immediate solution. In an environment where it's not safe to talk about problems, we know that performance lags.

Q: What companies do a good job in this respect?

A: Companies with a relentless focus on performance improvement. For them, problems are good things in that they offer opportunities to get better. Toyota is a great example.

Toyota's strong culture of improvement not only makes it safe to bring up problems, [but] the culture actively encourages workers to do so. On the assembly line, for instance, there's something called the andon cord. If anyone sees a problem on the line, he is supposed to pull the cord to summon a manager to look into it immediately, before the car or components on the line go any farther.

Assembly-line employees at Toyota aren't told, "Only pull the cord if you see a problem you can fix!" They're encouraged to identify problems- period-and they're honored for doing so. This is one reason among many that Toyota outperforms its competitors so consistently.

Q: What advice would you leave managers with?

A: Create a culture of accountability that doesn't limit recognition only to those who find both the problem and its solution. Of course, you want to reward creative problem solving. But you also want to celebrate the person who brings a problem to light, however big or small. That person is as much a part of the solution as the people who actually formulate the fix.

The bottom line is that you can't improve performance if you're not solving problems, and you can't solve problems you don't know about.

Interview with Francis Frei - Harvard University - Professor of Operations Management